It's hardly news that Greenwich Park has been slated by the Olympic powers-that-be for the equestrian events in 2012. Good thing/bad thing? Probably bad for many residents and park lovers. Could be good for Greenwich businesses - if only fleetingly.
Well the whole thing's up in the air again - like everything in Greenwich at the moment. Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister, has called for an investigation into the viability of the park as an equestrian venue (click here to see the Guardian's report of the 29th August), among others.
Anyone considering a redevelopment in Greenwich at the moment may be somewhat influenced by the uncertainty.
Showing posts with label Developments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Developments. Show all posts
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Boo-hoo boutique
An operator for the boutique hotel that is intended to form part of Greenwich Market's renovation is being actively sought on behalf of Greenwich Hospital. On Christie & Co's website (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/markets/hotels2/instructions/)they say:
Greenwich Hospital has instructed Christie + Co to secure a professional hotel operator for a boutique hotel opportunity in the heart of its exciting planned regeneration of Greenwich Market.Since February, Christie & Co have had a document available giving an outline of the proposal (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/pdf/Greenwich.pdf). It contains some information that may make a potential investor run away when they know the transportation truth that afflicts Greenwich. The document states:
The proposed project will see the transformation of Greenwich Market into an upscale leisure destination, whilst retaining the essential character and historical context of the market.
The completed scheme will see the creation of a new, modern market, additional office space as well the boutique hotel.
Greenwich Hospital is seeking an operator to partner the planning application for the hotel, which will be submitted by the middle of this year, and also to operate the completed property.
Ideally located in the heart of Greenwich, the completed hotel will benefit from easy access to a number of high-profile corporate and leisure business generators, including the O2 Arena and Canary Wharf.and:
Greenwich is located approximately five miles south east of the City of London. Benefitting from excellent public transport links, via the Docklands Light Railway from Cutty Sark station, Greenwich has easy access to Canary Wharf and London’s underground system.Easy access to Canary Wharf? Via the Docklands Light Railway? You can tell they don't spend a lot of time trying to get from one side of the river to the other on these "excellent public transport links", can't you? To my knowledge the DLR service has been appalling for years - and I see no sign of it improving this side of eternity.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A warm welcome
Following my posts about USM's insistence that their tent can't be heated, I decided to seek the advice of those in the know. I emailed some professional companies in the field of temporary structures:
Subject: Heating temporary structuresWithout identifying the companies, I thought you'd like to see the two responses I've received thus far. The first is pretty definite about USM's position and would be keen to help (my asterisks to preserve confidentiality):
I am investigating proposals for a temporary structure to accommodate a market for up to three years.
Only one proposal has been submitted for consideration so far and I am concerned that some of the information that has been given may be incorrect. It has been stated that the structure cannot be heated as it would be problematic and illegal. Specifically, we have been told:-
"a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures"
"it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure"
"heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly"
Can I please ask you to comment on these assertions as I believe them to be incorrect and I am concerned that the wrong supplier may be selected.
Thank you in anticipation
Thank you for your ****** and ********* enquiry and for showing interest in ****** Limited. Please be reassured that it is not illegal to heat a temporary building be it insulated or non-insulated - although obviously not practical to heat a non-insulated building!The second company is just as positive about heating, and also gives some helpful planning advice:
We have attached a copy of our brochure that illustrates how our multipurpose buildings can be used to create instant space for a variety of applications. Thanks to the robust modular design, our temporary buildings have the versatility of extending/reducing in size or being totally re-locatable in keeping with our client’s requirements and needs.
This is further enhanced with the flexibility to hire or buy a building; there is no minimum or maximum hire period and there is a sell back option available. Our temporary and permanent structures are available for hire or sale in both the UK and overseas. Our buildings are available in 5m modules for both width and length, with eave heights of 4.2m, 5.2m and 6.2m.
We would like the opportunity to work with your company, if you think you have a requirement for a temporary building and would like to discuss the options available to you please do contact us.
The situation is that it is definitely not illegal to heat temporary structures - we do it all the time. However if you are talking about getting planning permission for a temporary structure to be up for anything over 2 years, it needs to conform to building regulations. This is where it falls down. Most temporary structures cannot keep the heat retention that is required to satisfy these regulations. However if you were to apply for 2 years, then there is no problem. If you are using a planning consultant perhaps he can advise the best route to go - perhaps apply for 2 years and then extend for 1 year.So there you have it. Let's see what excuse USM can come up with next time the subject is raised.
I would be pleased to speak to you about this and also to give you a cost to supply you with a proposal if that was possible.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Compensation
I've been thinking. My conclusions are probably wrong as I haven't heard anyone else voice them, but I hope you'll indulge me.
The one fact I have, which started my addled thinking, is this: the shop owners within the market whose leases have extended beyond the start of the redevelopment have either been bought out or otherwise compensated for their trouble. Similar arrangements must also be in place for leaseholders of other properties on the island site.
This thought led me to two propositions, the first unconnected with the market's future, the second more interesting to market folk.
First, could this explain why Frank the Yank has acquired as much property as possible on the island site? He already had the Admiral Hardy and the INC bar before the redevelopment news first emerged. Since then he has added the Coach and Horses, the W Lounge (ex Powder Monkey) and George II to his portfolio. Say what you like about Frank, he's a very shrewd businessman.
Second, who is probably one of Greenwich Hospital's more significant leaseholders? Step forward GSM/USM, who hold the market's lease. The disruption caused to the market by the redevelopment will be huge. The current lease runs from 1997, when I would guess a clause about redevelopment would be unlikely, to 2012. I find it inconceivable that the leaseholders won't be in line for generous compensation for their trouble. In fact, I imagine they would be due an even greater wedge if the market had to be shut down altogether.
Given their behaviour of late I find it most unlikely that GSM/USM will have their lease renewed in 2012, so perhaps it may be to their advantage were the market to fail to be relocated and have to be closed down. Eric Reynolds is also a very shrewd businessman.
The one fact I have, which started my addled thinking, is this: the shop owners within the market whose leases have extended beyond the start of the redevelopment have either been bought out or otherwise compensated for their trouble. Similar arrangements must also be in place for leaseholders of other properties on the island site.
This thought led me to two propositions, the first unconnected with the market's future, the second more interesting to market folk.
First, could this explain why Frank the Yank has acquired as much property as possible on the island site? He already had the Admiral Hardy and the INC bar before the redevelopment news first emerged. Since then he has added the Coach and Horses, the W Lounge (ex Powder Monkey) and George II to his portfolio. Say what you like about Frank, he's a very shrewd businessman.
Second, who is probably one of Greenwich Hospital's more significant leaseholders? Step forward GSM/USM, who hold the market's lease. The disruption caused to the market by the redevelopment will be huge. The current lease runs from 1997, when I would guess a clause about redevelopment would be unlikely, to 2012. I find it inconceivable that the leaseholders won't be in line for generous compensation for their trouble. In fact, I imagine they would be due an even greater wedge if the market had to be shut down altogether.
Given their behaviour of late I find it most unlikely that GSM/USM will have their lease renewed in 2012, so perhaps it may be to their advantage were the market to fail to be relocated and have to be closed down. Eric Reynolds is also a very shrewd businessman.
Monday, July 14, 2008
If you can't stand the heat...
I'm sorry the promised toilet pictures aren't ready yet - it's surprisingly hard to operate a computer while retching constantly. It'll be done soon and I'll post an update then.
In the meantime I feel the need to resurrect "A heated debate". When I made that post I was unaware that there had been a second CLG meeting, which took place on the 1st July. Eric Reynolds and John Burton missed the meeting, so the hapless Chris Smith was left to restate the dodgy company line. Here's an extract from the minutes:
I know tent heating isn't the most critical issue facing the market, but USM's response to enquiries on the matter gives an indication of why many are deeply uneasy about them having any involvement in the market's future.
In the meantime I feel the need to resurrect "A heated debate". When I made that post I was unaware that there had been a second CLG meeting, which took place on the 1st July. Eric Reynolds and John Burton missed the meeting, so the hapless Chris Smith was left to restate the dodgy company line. Here's an extract from the minutes:
It was stated that a heating solution for the temporary market was essential. It was commented that heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly. The current market was not heated and it was thought that the retail units proposed to surround the market tent would provide a barrier to the elements.Again I ask (and I'm afraid I'll have to shout this time): What building regulations would heating the tent breach?
I know tent heating isn't the most critical issue facing the market, but USM's response to enquiries on the matter gives an indication of why many are deeply uneasy about them having any involvement in the market's future.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A heated debate
As many of you know, USM's proposal for the temporary relocation of the market and shops revolves around a tent on Cutty Sark Gardens. This is, I believe, the same tent USM Supremo Eric Reynolds offered to Greenwich Gateway for the millennium. Presumably it will have survived its nine years in storage well and will have the desired "wow factor" when unveiled next year. I'll have more to say on this later; for now I want to confine my comments to the issue of heating.
From the beginning, when the traders found out they were expected to do business in a tent by the river, it has been their contention that the tent must be heated in winter. Given the exposure of the location, this was always a requirement for traders and the comfort of customers.
Throughout the various meetings that the traders had with Greenwich Hospital and others it was always a given that the tent would be heated. Kate Jaconello, Nick Raynsford M.P., and Councillor Maureen O'Mara have all made the heating a sticking point. In meetings, Eric Dolby and Martin Sands of Greenwich Hospital have expressed their agreement with traders over the matter.
In the minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 19th November 2007, at which Eric Reynolds represented USM, it was noted that:
Five minutes on Google with the search term "marquee heating" turns up loads of sites offering such a service and lots of advice. Further research unearths some genuine experts in the field of temporary structures. I recommend:
All would be delighted to provide a proper temporary structure; heated, cooled, lit, ventilated, insulated, secure, etc.
Note to Greenwich Hospital: Ditch Eric and his tent - surely this is important enough to get it done by professionals.
From the beginning, when the traders found out they were expected to do business in a tent by the river, it has been their contention that the tent must be heated in winter. Given the exposure of the location, this was always a requirement for traders and the comfort of customers.
Throughout the various meetings that the traders had with Greenwich Hospital and others it was always a given that the tent would be heated. Kate Jaconello, Nick Raynsford M.P., and Councillor Maureen O'Mara have all made the heating a sticking point. In meetings, Eric Dolby and Martin Sands of Greenwich Hospital have expressed their agreement with traders over the matter.
In the minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 19th November 2007, at which Eric Reynolds represented USM, it was noted that:
The market would be housed in a tented structure that would be suitable to meet the requirements of the stallholders, e.g. heating, access, lavatories.For some reason Eric Reynolds has been heard to hum and haw subsequently about the heating issue. The minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 28th April this year make Eric's objections clear:
There were some concerns about the operational aspects of the tented structure. This included concerns about servicing, security, heating, sanitation, water supply and health & safety. In addition it was pointed out that having both ends of the tent open to the elements could create a wind tunnel effect through the structure.Eric gave further voice to his objection to heating at the first meeting of the Community Liaison Group (CLG) on the 10th June, where he revealed the glorious tent to a wider audience. According to the minutes:
It was commented that a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures. It was suggested that the entrances could be arranged such that a wind tunnel was not created.
It was questioned whether the tented structure would be heated or not. It was commented that it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure.Illegal, indeed? Against building regulations? Who says? Have you been a naughty boy again, Eric? As the recipient of one of their honours, surely you could have asked one of your RIBA contacts for clarification before trotting out this line again. You might even have asked one of the architects who are always present at KSCG meetings. Failing to check your assertion that it's "illegal to heat temporary structures" and "against building regulations", when both are false, makes it look like you're lying to the committees. As anyone who's ever been to an outdoor event in the inclement months knows, temporary structures are heated all the time.
Five minutes on Google with the search term "marquee heating" turns up loads of sites offering such a service and lots of advice. Further research unearths some genuine experts in the field of temporary structures. I recommend:
All would be delighted to provide a proper temporary structure; heated, cooled, lit, ventilated, insulated, secure, etc.
Note to Greenwich Hospital: Ditch Eric and his tent - surely this is important enough to get it done by professionals.
Monday, June 16, 2008
What a fine fellow
Greenwich Hospital have invited Eric Reynolds, the director of USM and GSM, to submit a proposal for the structure to temporarily house the market while the "island site" is redeveloped. I'm sure Greenwich Market is in safe hands; Eric was recently honoured by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).
The RIBA Honorary Fellowships for 2008 were presented at the Royal Gold Medal and Fellowships Dinner on the 12th February. Honoured for "his major contribution as a client to the urban regeneration of London and to the conservation of historic buildings", none other than Eric Reynolds.
I'm certain we can look forward to an exciting structure that will not only satisfy every requirement of the Hospital, the World Heritage site, the Council and the market traders, but will also draw huge numbers of visitors to Greenwich to gaze in awe at its latest attraction.
The RIBA Honorary Fellowships for 2008 were presented at the Royal Gold Medal and Fellowships Dinner on the 12th February. Honoured for "his major contribution as a client to the urban regeneration of London and to the conservation of historic buildings", none other than Eric Reynolds.
I'm certain we can look forward to an exciting structure that will not only satisfy every requirement of the Hospital, the World Heritage site, the Council and the market traders, but will also draw huge numbers of visitors to Greenwich to gaze in awe at its latest attraction.
Missing, presumed irrelevant
After an embarrassing first brush back in 2005/6 with the idea of town centre redevelopment which was noisily opposed and withdrawn, Greenwich Hospital regrouped to propose a more sympathetic plan.
In January 2007 the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group (KSCG) was set up by Greenwich Hospital to "provide a forum for consultation on a vision for the regeneration and improvement of the Hospital's core property within the World Heritage Site, in particular the Greenwich 'Island Site' - including the market". Chaired by the Member of Parliament for Greenwich, Nick Raynsford, its original members were:-
I'm sure USM's founding (and only) director and KSCG representative Eric Reynolds was surprised to find no market traders' representative at the meetings and I assume only shock prevented him from expressing his outrage at this omission.
I am advised that the reason for there being no market trader at the meetings was that USM had informed the Hospital prior to the founding of the group that the traders were happy to be represented by USM. As far as I know, traders have still to find one other trader who had given their approval to USM's representation of them. No-one had been approached by USM for their approval. No market trader even knew that the KSCG existed until after the first meeting.
USM's claim to represent the market traders was indeed outrageous, but I doubt they were being truly duplicitous, Perhaps Eric was ill-advised by his people on the ground in Greenwich, though I'm quite sure Barmy wouldn't betray the traders and mislead his employer by suggesting that he had canvassed traders' opinion. In any event, I have no doubt that Eric would have been unaware of these shenanigans as he is a well-known admirer of designers and artists, which many traders at Greenwich still are.
Anyway, I'm delighted to say that when the situation was drawn to their attention, the KSCG immediately invited the traders to the table and their representative has performed the task with integrity and vigour.
In January 2007 the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group (KSCG) was set up by Greenwich Hospital to "provide a forum for consultation on a vision for the regeneration and improvement of the Hospital's core property within the World Heritage Site, in particular the Greenwich 'Island Site' - including the market". Chaired by the Member of Parliament for Greenwich, Nick Raynsford, its original members were:-
- Greenwich Hospital
- London Borough of Greenwich
- Greenwich Foundation
- National Maritime Museum
- Greenwich Town Centre Traders Association
- Urban Space Management
- Town Centre Residents
- Chamber of Commerce
- Greenwich Peninsula Partnership
- The Greenwich Society
- Nelson Bakewell
- Hopkins Architects
- Communique
- Drivers Jonas (2nd meeting)
I'm sure USM's founding (and only) director and KSCG representative Eric Reynolds was surprised to find no market traders' representative at the meetings and I assume only shock prevented him from expressing his outrage at this omission.
I am advised that the reason for there being no market trader at the meetings was that USM had informed the Hospital prior to the founding of the group that the traders were happy to be represented by USM. As far as I know, traders have still to find one other trader who had given their approval to USM's representation of them. No-one had been approached by USM for their approval. No market trader even knew that the KSCG existed until after the first meeting.
USM's claim to represent the market traders was indeed outrageous, but I doubt they were being truly duplicitous, Perhaps Eric was ill-advised by his people on the ground in Greenwich, though I'm quite sure Barmy wouldn't betray the traders and mislead his employer by suggesting that he had canvassed traders' opinion. In any event, I have no doubt that Eric would have been unaware of these shenanigans as he is a well-known admirer of designers and artists, which many traders at Greenwich still are.
Anyway, I'm delighted to say that when the situation was drawn to their attention, the KSCG immediately invited the traders to the table and their representative has performed the task with integrity and vigour.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Communiquétion
I sent Greenwich Hospital an email today to enquire about the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group minutes, which I think are a tad tardy:-
I note from your website that as of today (11th June 2008) the minutes of the KSCG meeting held on the 28th April have not been posted. I would be grateful if would let me know when they will be.Greenwich Hospital use an outfit called Communiqué to keep the media (and the great unwashed, for that matter) at arms length. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, as they shouldn't be wasting your money on PR staff when they can get someone else to do it for them more economically and effectively. One supposes that the newsletters, publishing of minutes and website are all handled by Communiqué, so could Greenwich Hospital please encourage them to Communiquéte?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
